From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-05-14T01:12:02+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby vs. java?

On 5/11/05, Franz Hartmann <porschefranz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Ulm <michael.ulm@isis-papyrus.com> 
>> Sorry Franz, you are on a completely wrong track there. As much
>> as I hate to steer people away from Ruby, I don't think any of
>> the programming languages you mention are a good choice for
>> numeric simulations (if you would have to do it in one of those
>> languages, Ruby would be the best of the three for most
>> applications).
> Why are the programming languages i need not a good choice?
> Everyone says that object oriented programming is much faster than
> normal. Java has more object oriented feetures than ruby, or
> supports ruby interfaces and things like that too? i have not
> found any thing about it but documentation is very poor.

In fact, Java is *less* object-oriented in some ways than Ruby. No,
Ruby doesn't support "interfaces" as they're not needed in Ruby.
There is a long discussion behind this, but understand that anything
you can do in Java can ultimately be done in Ruby -- it just won't
look much like the Java code that does it. It'll usually be smaller
and more concise.

>> I would recommend Octave as the best free choice for getting
>> solutions for (partial) differential equations. If you have money
>> to burn, you may want to look at Matlab or, depending on your
>> specific needs, Maple or Mathematica.
> i cannot use octave. SGI octave is a unix machine and i need
> windows compatible, or best case macintosh, because i need use
> word & excel & power point (& counterstrike *g* ). which
> programming languages run on octave? thank you for the suggestion,
> i have already tried matlab but it is not good to. I want to do
> object oriented programming because it is faster.

Octave is a programming language that can be compiled for Mac OS X
(which is Unix) and it can run under Windows:

  http://octave.sourceforge.net/Octave_Windows.htm

>> P.S. do yourself a favour and forget that such a beast as vb
>> exists.
> Why that? VB is industry standard, a VERY powerful object oriented
> language. All programmers i know write in VB, and excel, word etc
> also use VB. What is wrong about it? (apart from that it is very
> difficult)

Visual Basic is neither powerful nor object oriented. Visual
Basic.NET is powerful and object oriented, but bears no relationship
to either VB6 or Visual Basic for Applications used as a macro
language in Excel and Word.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca